Nick writes: "My basic New Thought (new to me, I mean) was, why talk about biology when we can talk about computer programming, given the wonders that simple algorithms (eg, cellular automata) can generate."
It's true it is all much more coherent. But the algorithms are simple and the machines that execute them can't (yet) reproduce or repair themselves. They are at most shallow 3D fixed-purpose devices, not complex evolving nanomachines like cells. Most computer programs are built around the so-called von Neumann architecture that separates programs from the machine that executes programs, and this architecture has favored serial step-by-step programs instead of highly-distributed and scalable signaling. Papers like the one Roger shared are interesting to me is because the latent `discovered' structure might suggest new (synthetic biology) programming models, which could either be used directly to perform different tasks (eat up CO2, clean up toxic waste, novel medications, perform large distributed calculations) or inspire new designs for more conventional (e.g. silicon) systems. It's a fishing expedition to find fixed-function machines that already exist in nature and can be adapted to do what we want. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
